On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:52:30 +0000, Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***> writes:
>
>>> Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***> writes:
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, Big Science isn't just a conspiracy theory but a
>>>> social phenomenon quite ripe for a kicking.
>>>
>>> Yes, what with them being so insufferably *right* all the time. Heavens
>>> forbid that science would demand that you can prove your claims. *
>>
>> Oh, I'd love Wolfe (Tom, that is) to start out with some wonderful
>> BONFIRE OF THE SCIENCES martinet lab head signing off his sixtieth
>> publication for the year, clapping the hollow-eyed postdoc on the
>> back, then swinging past his pal at the funding agency to crush the
>> little people who insist on rocking the boat, and so on, and so on...
>>
>> Not sure what the setting should be. String theory? Star wars? Bell
>> Labs with that guy who Faked It All still beavering away? Some pompous
>> multi-country EU boondoggle with the usual hard-eyed recurring
>> participants? Just to avoid the fish in the barrel subjects, that is.
Solzhenitsyn in his _The Gulag Archipelago_ (I like _Arkhipelag GULag_
better) and _The First Circle_ describes the practice of the Soviet
jailers of the "scientific Gulag" to publish "zeks' " (prisoners')
researches and patents under their-- the jailers'-- names . . . .
> Ah yes, when considering Big Science, how could one forget medicine
> and its satellites? The examples just multiply too quickly.
Which is more attractive under "the business model" of medicine and
pharmacology, a one-time cure or a one-a-day prescription palliative?
--
Hoc est ratio?
< Lucilius
